figma_resize_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the default constraint behavior, which is already in the schema; it says nothing about whether children are resized, what happens to auto-layout frames, permission requirements, or reversibility for this mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the notable default second. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple mutation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations it should say more about side effects on children and constraints, which an agent would want before resizing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including width/height units and the withConstraints default are already documented. The description repeats the constraint behavior and adds no extra syntax or semantic depth, matching the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Resize a node") with the scope of the change ("to specific dimensions"). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like figma_move_node or figma_set_layout, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no prerequisites such as the node needing to be resizeable or existing on the current page. The only conditional guidance is about withConstraints, which is parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.